| UP |
Revised September 26, 2015
| Sections: | A. Difference – Apostolic succession and papal succession from Peter |
| B. Difference – Papal infallibility | |
| C. Difference – A kingdom of this world |
According to Roman Catholicism, the pope holds the highest human position of spiritual authority. This position is said to be a continuation of the position held by the apostle Peter. In other words, Peter is seen as the first pope and subsequent popes are seen as speaking the mind of Peter. The bishops at the council of Chalcedon in 451 referred to the declarations of the current pope, Leo I, as "the voice of Peter."
It is claimed that Christ made Peter the foundation of the Church and gave him the keys of the kingdom, in effect giving Peter authority over the other apostles. It is also claimed that through succession the position of apostle extends beyond the original twelve apostles and the position of pope also extends beyond Peter in an unbroken line of authority down to the present pope. The result of this series of claims is the additional claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church.
The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it…. This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."
The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God." (1994 Catechism, par. 816)
Thus, we need to examine the apostle Peter and just what special privileges Christ bestowed on him, if any.
The Roman Catholic Church claims that the office of apostle is passed on from the original twelve apostles to successive individuals, perpetuating that office along with all its authority down to the present time. The truth, however, is that the teaching of the original apostles is best represented and most permanently maintained in their writings, that is, in the New Testament, which was a product of the apostles and those closely associated with them. Of course, there was a brief period after Jesus' ascension during which the apostles and their associates had not written their gospels and letters. During that period the apostles themselves were the only benchmark available. But after the apostles died, their writings became the final court of appeal.
This question is basic: Does spiritual authority after the time of the apostles reside in the apostles' writings or in the apostles' successors? It is this question which some in the early history of the church answered incorrectly and thus began to steer the church down the wrong path.
Many of the inspired writings were recognized very early, by the middle of the second century, and the formal declaration of the recognized canon came before A.D. 400. In A.D. 367 Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his 39th Festal Epistle cited the same twenty-seven books that are in our present New Testament, stressing that they were “God-inspired scriptures.” Then, in A.D. 397 the Third Council of Carthage confirmed as canonical the same twenty-seven books. And shortly thereafter Jerome's Vulgate (Latin translation) included the same twenty-seven books. Certainly in our day, especially since all three branches that call themselves Christian (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant) agree on the 27 books which are inspired and belong in the New Testament, there should be no question as to the best source of apostolic teaching.
In contrast, the Roman Catholic Church claims that the office of apostle is permanent. Accordingly, bishops, as successors of the apostles, possess those apostles' offices and authority and even stand in their place. In addition, the bishops stand in the place, not merely of the apostles, but of God and Christ.… this Council has decided to declare and proclaim before all men its teaching concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ and the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God. (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, section 18)
That divine mission, entrusted by Christ to the apostles, will last until the end of the world (Mt. 28:20), since the gospel which has to be handed down by them is for all time the source of all life for the Church. For this reason the apostles took care to appoint successors in this hierarchically structured society. (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, section 20)
With their helpers, the priests and deacons, bishops have therefore taken up the service of the community, presiding in place of God over the flock whose shepherds they are, as teachers of doctrine, priests of sacred worship, and officers of good order. Just as the role that the Lord gave individually to Peter, the first among the apostles, is permanent and was meant to be transmitted to his successors, so also the apostles' office of nurturing the Church is permanent, and was meant to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops. Therefore, this sacred Synod teaches that by divine institution bishops have succeeded to the place of the apostles as shepherds of the Church, and that he who hears them, hears Christ, while he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ (cf. Luke 10:16).
In the bishops, therefore, for whom priests are assistants, our Lord Jesus Christ, the supreme High Priest, is present in the midst of those who believe. (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, sections 20-21)
However, the Bible favors a different concept of apostolic succession, one that focuses on the content and authority of the original apostles' writings. The Bible gives evidence for the importance and distribution of the apostles' writings (Colossians 4:16), but says nothing about the continuation of their office.
The biblical pattern is obvious. Repeatedly in the gospels, Jesus appeals directly to the Old Testament scriptures, but never appealed to the authority of the Aaronic priesthood. For example, when tempted by Satan, four times Jesus said "It is written ..." (Matthew 4:1-11). And in Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the source of information for the rich man's brothers was "Moses and the prophets" (Luke 16:19-31).
The concept of succession of the office of bishop appears quite early in the writings of the church fathers. Perhaps the first to mention such succession is Clement, bishop of Rome, around A.D. 95.
The Apostles … as they preached in the country and in the towns, they appointed their firstfruits (having proved them by the Spirit) to be bishops and deacons [overseers and ministers] of them that should believe. … Our Apostles knew also, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the dignity of the bishop's office. For this reason therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid, and after a time made provision that on their death other approved men should succeed to their ministry. (Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, sections xlii - xliv, from Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, p. 89)
Over the next three centuries the emphasis on succession of office becomes much stronger, to the point of claiming that the bishops are, not just successors of the apostles on earth, but Christ on earth.
Around 180 Hegesippus, perhaps the earliest nonbiblical historian of the church, refers in his "The Memoirs" to formal successions in Corinth and lists the three most recent successions in Rome, from Anicetus to Soter to Eleutherus (Eusebius, H.E. IV. xxii. 2).
Also around 180 Irenaeus stressed the supremacy of Rome and the succession of apostles which differentiates between true and false church meetings.
... we confound all those who in any way ... hold unauthorized meetings. This we do by pointing to the apostolic tradition and the faith that is preached to men, which has come down to us through the successions of bishops; the tradition and creed of the greatest, the most ancient church, the church known to all men, which was founded and set up at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul. For with this church, because of its position of leadership and authority, must needs agree every church, that is, the faithful everywhere; for in her the apostolic tradition has always been preserved by the faithful from all parts. (Irenaeus, Adv. haereses, III, iii, 1)
In referring to the church at Rome as "the most ancient church" Irenaeus appears to forget about the church at Jerusalem (Acts 2). Nevertheless, he goes on to list the 12 men who he claims succeeded the original apostles at Rome.
The blessed Apostles, after founding and building up the church, handed over to Linus the office of bishop. Paul mentions this Linus in his epistles to Timothy (2 Tim. iv. 21). He was succeeded by Anacletus, after whom, in the third place after the Apostles, Clement was appointed to the bishopric. He not only saw the blessed Apostles but also conferred with them, and had their preaching ringing in his ears and their tradition before his eyes. … Euarestus succeeded this Clement, Alexander followed Euarestus; then Sixtus was appointed, the sixth after the Apostles. After him came Telesphorus, who had a glorious martyrdom. Then Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus and Soter; and now, in the twelfth place from the Apostles, Eleutherus occupies the see. (Irenaeus, Adv. haereses, III, iii, 2-3)
We ought to obey only those presbyters who are in the Church, who have their succession from the Apostles, as we have shown …. (Irenaeus, Adv. haereses, IV, xxvi, 2)
Note that Irenaeus refers to the writings of the Apostles when he states that Clement had "their tradition before his eyes." This would have been around A.D. 90. Yet, for centuries after this time the main appeal of the Roman Catholic Church is always to the position of the bishop, rather than to the truth of the writings, the scriptures.
Around 200 Tertullian challenges false teachers.
Let them then produce the origins of their churches; let them unroll the list of their bishops, an unbroken succession from the beginning so that that first bishop had as his precursor and the source of his authority one of the Apostles or one of the apostolic men who, though not an Apostle, continued with the Apostles. This is how the apostolic churches report their origins; thus the church of the Smyrnaeans relates that Polycarp was appointed by John, the church of Rome that Clement was ordained by Peter … (Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum, xxxii)
Around 250 Cyprian defended the hierarchical form of apostolic succession.
Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we are bound to observe, ordered the high office of bishop and the system of his Church when he speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, 'Thou art Peter, etc.' (Matt. xvi. 18,19). … Thence age has followed age and bishop has followed bishop in succession, and the office of the episcopate and the system of the Church has been handed down, so that the Church is founded on the bishops and every act of the Church is directed by those same presiding officers. (Cyprian, Epistle xxxiii, 1)
It is obvious that Cyprian is reading a lot into the Matthew 16 passage, which we will discuss later.
Thus, the notion of apostolic succession developed into a formalized, almost Levitical, scheme which focuses on the bishop as one who holds an office and has a line of pedigree. In contrast, the New Testament teaching regarding the bishop focuses on a man of highest Christian character who ministers the truth in love.
Rather than a succession of apostles, the New Testament records a transition from the original apostles to elders (bishops, pastors) without confusing the two. Notice the presence of both apostles and elders already in the church at Jerusalem (Acts 15:2 - 16:4). Also notice that as new churches were founded, elders, not apostles, were appointed or elected (Acts 14:23, compare 20:17). The qualifications for being an elder focus on Christian character and ability to minister and say nothing about being appointed by a pedigreed bishop (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9).
There are two New Testament passages which emphasize passing the faith along.
Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. (Matthew 28:18-20)
… what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well. (2 Timothy 2:2)
It is obvious in both of these passages that what is being passed along is not an office, but the teachings.
The notion of apostolic succession seems to misunderstand the very nature of an apostle. Notice the essential characteristics of an apostle.
He appointed twelve [whom he also named apostles] that they might be with him and he might send them forth to preach and to have authority to drive out demons (Mark 3:14-15)
According to this passage, an apostle had to be with Christ, he ministered by preaching Christ, and he demonstrated the authority of his message by driving out demons (compare 2 Corinthians 12:12). Later, after Christ rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, a new apostle was chosen to replace Judas. Peter said that this new apostle should be one who was with the group all the way from the time of John the Baptist up to the ascension of Christ, emphasizing that he must have seen the risen Christ (Acts 1:15-26).
Thus, we can list these essential characteristics of an apostle:
Obviously, the first two essential characteristics can be true only for one generation. Thus, the office of apostle is incommunicable and the notion of apostolic succession (passing along the office) is foreign to scripture.
The real successor of the apostles is the New Testament itself. We believe that the apostles and their close associates wrote the gospels (synoptics) and epistles of the New Testament before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Even the more liberal Roman Catholic scholars limit the dates of authorship to the first century. The majority of these books were recognized as inspired and thus canonical very early. Although the exact New Testament canon as we have it today was not formalized until the Third Council of Carthage in A.D. 397, the Muratorian canon of two centuries earlier was very similar to the canon of 397, and even Clement, bishop of Rome around A.D. 90 was known to possess at least some of the apostles writings for he had "their tradition before his eyes".
It is reasonable to allow for a delay in the distribution of the apostles' writings. They probably did not have copies of the writings to pass out to the believers in each new church that they founded in various locations. During this time, it can be expected that the source of authority was primarily the founding apostle and secondarily those whom they taught and appointed as elders. Any believer who wanted to be sure of his beliefs would logically seek out such an elder, so there is a period of time during which the position of elder and the connection that elder had with an apostle were very significant. The Roman Catholic mistake was to emphasize the authority of the so-called successors and de-emphasize the authority of the writings.
Any minister of Christ, no matter how many decades or centuries later, can return directly to the authority of the apostles by reading their writings. Such a scheme, having the preserved written documents of the apostles, is obviously far superior to the notion of attempting to trace an office back through a succession of fallible men to one of the apostles, especially when many in that supposed line of succession were appointed by worldly powers as history shows.
After John the Baptist baptized Jesus, two of John's disciples followed him. One of them, Andrew, told his brother Simon that they had found the Messiah, and brought Simon to Jesus. Jesus said to him,
"You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas" (which is translated Peter). (John 1:42)
The Greek word këphas, which appears as "Cephas" in many translations, is a transliteration of the Aramaic word kepha, meaning stone or rock. The word in Greek which means stone or rock is πετρος (petros), which becomes Simon's Greek name, Peter.
Months later in Galilee, after Jesus' early Judean ministry and presumably after Peter and Andrew had returned to their fishing trade, Jesus called them along with others to be his followers (Matthew 4:18-22).
It is true that Peter is prominent among the apostles during the years of Jesus' earthly ministry.
Peter is also the first apostle to whom Christ appeared after his resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:5). And Peter remains prominent after the ascension of Christ as recorded in the early chapters of Acts.
But such prominence in itself does not support the notion that Peter was given authority over the other apostles. Peter's place among, rather then over, the other apostles is illustrated by the fact that Peter, along with John, was sent by the other apostles from Jerusalem to Samaria (Acts 8:14), and by the fact that Peter was not above being questioned by the Jewish believers upon his return from the house of Cornelius (Acts 11:1-18). In fact, Jesus explicitly warned his apostles not to consider themselves in a position of authority. That was the attitude of the gentile rulers, but had no place in Jesus' kingdom.
… Jesus summoned them and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave. Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:25-28)
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people's shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them. All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi.' As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher and you are all brothers. Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven. Do not be called 'Master'; you have but one master, the Messiah. The greatest among you must be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted. (Matthew 23:1-12)
Peter himself, in giving advice to elders (presbyters), passed on this warning against the use of authority and similarly emphasized the attitude of a servant. Note also that Peter identifies himself as a fellow presbyter, not as their superior.
So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and witness of the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed. Tend the flock of God in your midst, not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly. Do not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock. (1 Peter 5:1-3).
Also, consider the last recorded statement of Jesus to Peter, which occurred after Peter had asked what would happen to John. In essence, Jesus told Peter not to be concerned about John – just the opposite of what Jesus would have said if Peter had been given a position of authority above John.
When Peter saw him [John], he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about him?" Jesus said to him, "What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours? You follow me." (John 21:21-22)
Peter is often the one who speaks up even when other apostles are present (although this is not always the case, see John 6:8). Such quickness to speak should not be taken as an indication that he had any special position among the twelve (such as their chosen spokesman), or that he had received authority over the other eleven. On the contrary, Jesus told his disciples "you are all brothers" (Matthew 23:8).
It is helpful to notice the role of Peter in the very first church council, recorded in Acts 15. This council was gathered to deal with the teaching of the legalistic Jews who held that Christians should be required to be circumcised in order to be saved (verse 1). Peter was present at this council (verses 7, 14), and played a prominent role by reporting his experiences, not by pronouncing an edict for everyone else to follow. If, as is claimed by the Roman Catholic Church, Peter had already been authorized by Christ as his successor on earth and had been given authority in spiritual matters, then we would expect to read that at this council Peter pronounced the mind of Christ and all others accepted his authority. But according to Luke's record, something quite different happened. After Peter reported his experiences with gentiles coming to faith in Christ, Paul and Barnabas reported their experiences, then James took the leadership (verses 13-19) in suggesting a line of action and the whole group of apostles, elders, and the congregation concurred. Notice especially the phrase "we have with one accord decided …" (verse 25) and the phrase "It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us [plural]" (verse 28).
And thus it is fitting that, when Christ gives his "great commission" to his disciples, he refers to his own authority ("power") but not of any human authority. And when he commanded his disciples to go, make disciples, baptize, and teach, he did not single out any one disciple to head this effort, but gave the commission to all his disciples equally.
Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20)
Jesus said that all authority ("power") was given to him (Matthew 28:18). Authority ultimately rests in God, not in any human being or human organization. Jesus spoke these words after he had told the apostles he was giving them the kingdom. Thus divine authority was never passed on – not to Peter, not to any of the other apostles.
Roman Catholic theologians admit that Peter had certain failings. The failings we are concerned with here are those which occurred after his supposed appointment as the foundation of the church.
Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge these failings but explain that they prove that it is not the individual who is important, but the position and the authority that goes with that position that are important. One thing should be obvious, however: it is a person's actions which are the legitimate focus of judgment, no matter what position or authority the individual supposedly has. This is true whatever the time, place, or position. For example, consider the judgments on the kings of Israel, beginning with the very first one, Saul, which included removal from office (1 Samuel 15). And when discussing anyone who "aspires to the office of bishop" (1 Timothy 3:1), Paul focuses squarely on the individual's actions and character when he says "a bishop must be irreproachable," then lists various requirements which all focus on the individual's life pattern (1 Timothy 3:1-13, compare Titus 1:5-9). Also consider the public rebuke that is due an elder who sins (1 Timothy 5:19-20). There is no separation of position and practice here; instead, there is the strongest possible link between the two.
Peter is a faltering human being, like all of us. No human being deserves to be considered the foundation of the true church; that honor is earned only by the church's Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Roman Catholic scholars (and some others) also claim that before returning to heaven, Jesus "reinstated" Peter, supposedly in John 21. But a simple reading of that passage shows that there is absolutely no explicit mention of reinstatement. Even if John 21 were a formal reinstatement of Peter, remember that Peter's fourth failure in the above list occurred after John 21. Thus, what guarantee could the Roman Catholic Church offer that Peter or any other subsequent leaders would not fail again and again?
Here we must examine one of the most widely discussed points of disagreement, which revolves around "Peter's confession" and Jesus' response.
Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God. …"
And so I say to you, you are Peter (Greek Πετρος, Petros), and upon this rock (Greek πετρα, petra) I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:16-19)
Jesus' question, which prompted Peter's confession, was addresses "to them" and worded to include all of them, "But who do you say that I am?" (verse 15, "you" is plural, compare verse 13). After Peter's statement Jesus addresses several comments directly to Peter, but then orders "his disciples" (verse 20) not to share their knowledge that he is the Messiah with anyone else. This indicates that it was not exclusively Peter's opinion that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the living God, but that all the disciples were aware of this fact.
According to the Greek, Jesus makes a play on two words which sound similar but have different meanings. The word petros refers to a stone or loose fragment of rock, while petra refers to a large or attached rock such as a cliff or bedrock. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words explains that petros denotes "a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved," whereas petra denotes "a mass of rock." The word petra is used 14 times in 13 verses in the New Testament (besides its use in Matthew 16:18) and that usage supports this distinction.
(1) Matthew 7:24 "a wise man who built his house on rock"
(2) Matthew 7:25 "it had been set solidly on rock"
(3) Matthew 27:51 "The earth quaked, rocks were split."
(4) Matthew 27:60 "tomb that he had hewn in the rock"
(5) Mark 15:46 "a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock"
(6) Luke 6:48 "a person building a house, who dug deeply and laid the foundation on rock"
(7) Luke 8:6 "Some seed fell on rocky ground , and when it grew, it withered for lack of moisture."
(8) Luke 8:13 "Those on rocky ground are the ones who, when they hear, receive the word with joy"
(9) Romans 9:33 "I am laying a stone in Zion that will make people stumble and a rock that will make them fall"
(10) 1 Corinthians 10:4 "they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was the Christ"
(11) 1 Peter 2:8 "A stone that will make people stumble, and a rock that will make them fall"
(12) Revelation 6:15 "hid themselves in caves and among mountain crags" ("mountain crags" in the Greek is literally "rocks of the mountains")
(13) Revelation 6:16 "They cried out to the mountains and the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us …"
From the above list, (1), (2), and (6) are explicit references to a foundation rock. (3) refers to rocks which split during an earthquake – obviously large rocks. (4) and (5) refer to a rock large enough to enclose a tomb. (7) and (8) refers to soil which lacks moisture because of the rock, which would apply only to a large rock (probably a rocky substratum beneath surface soil). (9) and (11) are quoting Isaiah 8:14 and 28:16, where the stone that causes stumbling (rather than being easily kicked aside) is called a foundation stone. (10) is a figurative use of rock which then identifies the rock as Christ. And (12) and (13) speak of rocks that are large enough to be hiding places.
In contrast, petros is used exclusively as Simon's name given him by Christ (John 1:42). In the New Testament, petros is never used of a large, foundation rock, and petra is never used to identify Peter. Some mistakenly argue that this is because petros in Greek is masculine while petra is feminine, making it inappropriate to call Peter a petra. But if such a restriction actually governed the usage of masculine and feminine nouns, then it would also have been inappropriate for Paul to identify Jesus as the petra in 1 Corinthians 10:4.
The Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is that Peter is the rock upon which Jesus said he would build his church. And this interpretation may appear plausible at first glance, since the name Peter in Greek does refer to a certain type of rock, and since Jesus said he would build his church "upon this rock." This interpretation obviously holds that the change in wording, from Petros to petra, is insignificant. Some who hold this view claim that in Aramaic (the language Jesus probably used when he made this statement) there is only one word for rock, namely kepha (Peter's name in Aramaic). Thus, they argue that Jesus is not making a play on words, since in Aramaic he must have used only that one word. But we will show how feeble this argument is.
Our knowledge of the Aramaic language of that time is incomplete. As a result, many scholars mistakenly adopt the opinion that Aramaic had only this one word for stone or rock. They surmise that there was probably no separate single word in Aramaic for a large, solid, foundation-like rock as opposed to a smaller rock (kepha). Thus, they would reason that Jesus, if he were speaking Aramaic, would have had to use the same word for Peter and for the rock which is the church's foundation. This is the view expressed in the Saint Joseph Bible in the footnote to Matthew 16:18. (By the way, Roman Catholics are not the only ones who hold this view; H. L. Ellison says flatly that any play on words was "impossible." See his discussion of Matthew 16:18 in A New Testament Commentary, Howley, Bruce, & Ellison, Zondervan, 1969.)
But such reasoning is completely invalid for two reasons. First, C. Gordon Olson points out that, when you search various ancient Aramaic writings, such as the Targums (translations and interpretive paraphrases of the Hebrew Old Testament into Aramaic) and the Talmud (extensive rabbinic discussions of Jewish history, law, and customs), you find that there are Aramaic words for a large solid, attached rock. One is shu'ah which refers to bedrock, and another is tur which refers to mountains, cliffs, and bedrock. (See Olson's Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism, Global Gospel Publishers, 2002, p 352-356). In fact, the word tur is found in Daniel 2:35 and 45 (part of the Aramaic portion of Daniel) where it is translated "mountain." So there is no shortage of Aramaic words. Jesus could have said, literally, in Aramaic, that Peter is a small rock, but Jesus will build his church on the foundation rock (himself).
Second, let's suppose for the moment that the Aramaic language did have the limitation claimed by Ellison and others as mentioned above. If that were the case, the argument is still just plain silly and exposes a complete misunderstanding of how language works. No language is limited by its single words; that's what phrases are for. In English we have many concepts for which we do not have a single word, so we commonly use extra words in a short phrase to clarify our meaning. For example, when placing an order at the counter of a fast food restaurant we typically hear phrases such as "eat in," "carry out," "dining room," and "to go." It would be absurd if, centuries from now, a "scholar" claimed that, since we did not have a single word for eating in, we were unable to distinguish between eating in and carrying out. Olson makes the same point:
There is no language on the face of the earth which cannot distinguish between bedrock or a cliff and a detached stone, even if the speaker has to use some adjectives or other device. (Olson, op. cit., p. 356)
The only record of what Jesus said is Matthew's inspired record in Greek. It displays the worst of scholarship to attempt to guess what Jesus' wording might have been in Aramaic, especially if one adopts such an unrealistic limitation of language. Since the distinction between Petros and petra is found in the Greek of Matthew 16:18, the only safe assumption is that it was also found in Jesus' original statement – perhaps indicated by two different Aramaic words, or by a short phrase containing an adjective, or even by a simple gesture.
Far from identifying Peter as the foundation of the church, Jesus was contrasting Peter with himself, the true foundation of the church. In Matthew 16:18 the phrase "upon this rock" follows the conjunction "and" (Greek: και, kai). The Greek word kai is used very frequently in the New Testament, and usually means "and." However, in Greek (unlike English) a conjunction can have several meanings, depending on the context. The conjunction kai can legitimately be translated using such words as "then," "also," "even," "yet," or "but." Indeed, kai is often translated "but" in the Catholic New American Bible – see Matthew 6:26; 11:19; 13:14, 22; 17:16; 22:3; 23:37; 26:60; 27:14, 34 (plus many other examples in the books of the other New Testament authors). Given the contrast that is already present in the passage (the different words petros and petra), along with the explicit teaching of Jesus, Peter, and Paul (see below), it would be preferable to translate the passage as follows:
you are Peter, but upon this rock I will build my church …
Here is Olson's paraphrase of the passage:
You, Simon are a stone; but upon this very bedrock [pointing to Himself] I will build my church. (Olson, op. cit., p. 355)
If Jesus had meant to identify Peter as the rock which was also the foundation of the church, he could have easily used the simpler statement, "… you are Peter, and upon you I will build my church …".
In spite of the evidence of Matthew 16:18, the Roman Catholic Church has long claimed that Peter is the foundation, the rock on which the church is built. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, around 250 wrote
He [the Lord] builds his church upon him [Peter]. (Cyprian, De catholicae ecclesiae unitate, par. 4, Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, p. 101)
However, Jesus is the true foundation or cornerstone of the church, a fact which Jesus himself stated. Jesus told the parable of the landowner who left his vineyard in the hands of certain tenants (Matthew 21:33-46) and the Jewish leaders realized that they were the tenants (verse 45). In the parable the tenants rejected and killed the landowner's son, which is, of course, Jesus. Then Jesus asked the Jewish leaders a question that included a quotation from Psalm 118. Jesus' question shows that he considered himself to be the rejected stone which becomes the cornerstone.
Jesus said to them, Did you never read in the scriptures: "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; by the Lord has this been done and it is wonderful in our eyes"? (Matthew 21:42)
Peter himself confirmed this fact.
He [Jesus Christ] is "the stone rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone." (Acts 4:11; compare 1 Peter 2:4-8 )
Paul also spoke of Jesus as the foundation.
… no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 3:11; compare 10:4)
Even when Paul brings the apostles into the picture, it is not a single apostle, but all the apostles together with the prophets, and Christ is still the capstone.
… you are … members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone. (Ephesians 2:19-20)
Remember that Jesus Christ is
With this in mind, it would be pure folly to imagine that Jesus would build his church on any mere mortal rather than on himself.
What are the keys of the kingdom? Literally, of course, a key opens a lock so that a person may enter. Figuratively a key is a fact or knowledge that opens up the understanding of the truth. And with the correct response to the truth about Christ, a person may enter the kingdom of heaven. The word key is used in this sense when Jesus condemned the Pharisees and scholars.
You have taken away the key of knowledge. You yourselves did not enter and you stopped those trying to enter. (Luke 11:52)
The word is also used in this same sense when Jesus said to Peter
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19)
This statement comes after Peter stated the truth that God had revealed to him about Jesus, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. So, as expected, the key has to do with knowledge. But even though Peter had stated the truth, it was not the full truth, for Jesus went on to teach his disciples that he had to go to Jerusalem, suffer death, and then rise from the grave, a fact which Peter at that point rejected (Matthew 16:21-22). So it was not until after Jesus' resurrection that the disciples learned this part of the truth. After his resurrection, Jesus proved to his huddled disciples that he was the same one who had been crucified by showing them his wounds; and he proved to them that he was physically alive (not just a spirit) by eating in front of them (Luke 24:38-43). Now Jesus' disciples knew not only who Jesus was as the Son of the living God, but also what he came to earth to do – to suffer death as the punishment for man's sin and to rise again. Earlier Jesus had promised Peter he would give him the keys of the kingdom (notice the future tense in Matthew 16:19, quoted above). Now Peter and all the disciples had both of the keys, (1) the knowledge of the person of Christ, and (2) the knowledge of the work of Christ that would allow them to spread the gospel truth with confidence and be assured that a positive response to this message allowed people to enter the kingdom of heaven.
The Pharisees, as leaders of the Jews, should have had this knowledge and should have welcomed Jesus. But they did not (John 1:11), and Jesus had to transfer the kingdom from the Jewish nation to the new "nation" of the disciples, as he promised (Matthew 21:43-45; Luke 12:32).
The rest of Matthew 16:19 reads as follows:
Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 16:19b)
"You" in Matthew 16:19-20 is singular in the Greek. That is, the Greek pronoun in verse 19 is singular and the Greek verb forms behind "bind" and "loose" are singular. So in this passage "you" does refer to Peter. However, the same promise of binding and loosing appears in Matthew 18:18 where the Greek verb forms are plural, which indicates that the promise of binding and loosing was given to all the disciples.
Roman Catholicism teaches that priests can forgive sins, for
The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God. (1994 Catechism, par. 1445)
But only God can forgive sins. Even the scribes and Pharisees knew this and said so when Jesus told the paralyzed man his sins were forgiven (Mark 2:1-12). It is significant that Jesus never corrected the scribes regarding this point. Instead he set about to prove that he had authority to forgive sins by healing the man, thereby proving his deity. The conclusion must be: God can forgive sins; man cannot.
Then what exactly is this binding and loosing in Matthew 16:19? When the Jewish religious leaders made pronouncements regarding what was unlawful, that was called binding. And when they made pronouncements regarding what was lawful, that was called loosing. So Jesus is simply telling his disciples (Peter and the other disciples) that, as those who had the correct teachings regarding Jesus and the kingdom (that is, as those who had "the keys"), when they bound (made pronouncements regarding what was wrong to do because it was sin) and when they loosed (made pronouncements regarding what was right to do), their words to men on earth represented the thoughts of God in heaven.
This does not mean that the disciples (or later, priests) could hear an individual confess his sins, forgive that individual, with the result that God ("heaven") would also forgive that individual because the disciple did. While the English of The New American Bible (catholic) and many other translations does not reveal the exact relationship between the binding on earth and the binding in heaven, the Greek does. The binding and loosing in heaven (in both Matthew 16:19 and 18:18) are written in the future perfect tense in the Greek indicating that something has already happened at the future time. This tense is very rare in the New Testament and should serve to alert translators to attempt to express this future perfect tense as accurately as possible in English. While it is true that there is no exact correspondence between the tenses in Greek and those in English, one faithful rendering in English would be "whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven." Indeed, this is the exact same meaning found in interlinear Greek New Testaments. For the English phrases "… shall be bound in heaven … shall be loosed in heaven" as found in Matthew 16:19 in the New American Bible, boh Marshall and Mounce provide the following interlinear readings:
| Greek: | … | εσται | δεδεμενον | εν | τοις ουρανοις | … | εσται | λελυμενον | εν | τοις ουρανοις |
| Marshall: | … | shall be | having been bound | in | the heavens | … | shall be | having been loosed | in | the heavens |
| Mounce: | … | will | have been bound | in | heaven | … | will | have been loosed | in | heaven |
The same thing occurs in Matthew 18:18. And several other translations accurately render the Greek, as shown below for Matthew 16:19.
Here is Keener's explanation:
In some translations of Matthew 18:18, it sounds like Jesus promised his disciples that whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven, and whatever they loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. In other words, they had the power to bind and loose, and Heaven (i.e., God) would simply back up their decrees. But the matter is not quite so simple; the actions described in heaven are future perfect passives — which could be translated "will have already been bound in heaven ... will have already been loosed in heaven." In other words, the heavenly decree confirming the earthly one is based on a prior verdict.
This is the language of the law court. Jewish legal issues were normally decided in Jesus' day by elders in the synagogue community (later by rabbis). Many Jewish people believed that the authority of Heaven stood behind the earthly judges when they decided cases based on a correct understanding of God's law. (This process came to be called "binding and loosing.") Jesus' contemporaries often envisioned God's justice in terms of a heavenly court; by obeying God's law, the earthly court simply ratified the decrees of the heavenly court. In Matthew 18:15-20, Christians who follow the careful procedures of verses 15-17 may be assured that they will act on the authority of God's court when they decide cases.
Just as we struggle to affirm absolutes in a relativist culture, Christians today sometimes wonder how to exercise discipline lovingly against a sinning member of the church. In this text, Jesus provides an answer: when the person refuses to turn from sin after repeated loving confrontation, the church by disciplining the person simply recognizes the spiritual reality that is already true in God's sight. (Craig S. Keener, in William D. Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, Zondervan, 2009, p. 122)
The real binding and loosing is established by God first. When the disciples make pronouncements regarding right and wrong, regarding the truth about Jesus, etc., those pronouncements reflect God's pre-established truths. Remember that, in these two passages, binding and loosing are not to be equated with forgiving or not forgiving, but with pronouncing truth in contrast to error.
However, in John 20:23, forgiving is clearly in view. But here also, the tenses are important.
Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained. (John 20:23)
Both phrases, "are forgiven" and "are retained," are in the perfect tense in the Greek, indicating present states that are the result of past actions. Thus, as expected, Marshall's Interlinear readings for the Greek behind these two phrases are "have been forgiven" and "have been held" respectively. Again, what happens in heaven takes place first and is the cause. The human evangelist is merely restating what has already happened in heaven. If the human evangelist says to an individual that his sins are forgiven, and that statement is based on the fact that the individual has repented of his sins and trusted in Jesus Christ (knowing that Jesus is God's Son who died for his sins), then the evangelist's statement is accurate and reflects the truth of forgiveness already established by God.
The Latin language has similarities with Greek; both languages are highly inflected, and they have similar tense systems. It is very interesting to note that the Latin Vulgate, long the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, accurately expresses the future perfect tense in Matthew 16:19 (as illustrated above in Greek). And the Latin tenses in Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23 also accurately reflect the fact that heaven's action (binding, loosing, forgiving, retaining) comes first, and man's statement about that action comes after the fact.
In John 20:23, the Nova Vulgata, published in the late 20th century by the Vatican, follows the Greek even more literally than Jerome's Vulgate, and thus it is even more emphatic on this point. The Nova Vulgata uses the present perfect phrase "remissa sunt eis," indicating that the sins have been forgiven, rather than the phrase "remittuntur eis" found in the older version. (The Nova Vulgata can be found online here.) In light of this faithfulness of the Latin Vulgate to the Greek, it is all the more surprising that the interpretation of these passages held by the Roman Catholic Church ignores the significance of the tenses.
Note the comments of A. T. Robertson, a well known New Testament Greek scholar, regarding Matthew 16:19 and related verses.
The Keys of the kingdom (τα κλειδα τη βασιλεια). Here again we have the figure of a building with keys to open from the outside. The question is raised at once if Jesus does not here mean the same thing by "kingdom" that he did by "church" in verse 18. In Revelation 1:18; Revelation 3:7 Christ the Risen Lord has "the keys of death and of Hades." He has also "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" which he here hands over to Peter as "gatekeeper" or "steward" (οικονομο) provided we do not understand it as a special and peculiar prerogative belonging to Peter. The same power here given to Peter belongs to every disciple of Jesus in all the ages. Advocates of papal supremacy insist on the primacy of Peter here and the power of Peter to pass on this supposed sovereignty to others. But this is all quite beside the mark. We shall soon see the disciples actually disputing again (Matthew 18:1) as to which of them is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven as they will again (Matthew 20:21) and even on the night before Christ's death. Clearly neither Peter nor the rest understood Jesus to say here that Peter was to have supreme authority. What is added shows that Peter held the keys precisely as every preacher and teacher does. To "bind" (δηση) in rabbinical language is to forbid, to "loose" (λυση) is to permit. Peter would be like a rabbi who passes on many points. Rabbis of the school of Hillel "loosed" many things that the school of Schammai "bound." The teaching of Jesus is the standard for Peter and for all preachers of Christ. Note the future perfect indicative (εσται δεδεμενον, εσται λελυμενον), a state of completion. All this assumes, of course, that Peter's use of the keys will be in accord with the teaching and mind of Christ. The binding and loosing is repeated by Jesus to all the disciples (Matthew 18:18). Later after the Resurrection Christ will use this same language to all the disciples (John 20:23), showing that it was not a special prerogative of Peter. He is simply first among equals, primus inter pares, because on this occasion he was spokesman for the faith of all. It is a violent leap in logic to claim power to forgive sins, to pronounce absolution, by reason of the technical rabbinical language that Jesus employed about binding and loosing. Every preacher uses the keys of the kingdom when he proclaims the terms of salvation in Christ. The proclamation of these terms when accepted by faith in Christ has the sanction and approval of God the Father. The more personal we make these great words the nearer we come to the mind of Christ. The more ecclesiastical we make them the further we drift away from him. (The Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1933, 1960)
It is interesting to contrast the Greek tenses in the Matthew passages (16:19 and 18:18) and the John passage (20:23). In the Matthew passages the time is well before the death of Jesus and he is telling his disciples about something that is still future to them. (The tenses are future and future perfect.) But in the John passage, Jesus has already died and risen, and he is telling his disciples about the present. (The words "forgive" and "retain" are aorist and present tense, respectively, and "are forgiven" and "are retained" are both perfect tense.) At this point the disciples know, not only who Jesus is, but also what he has done. They now know that Jesus Christ (1) is the Son of God and (2) has died for our sins and rose again. When the disciples understand these two central facts, they have both of the keys of the kingdom and are ready to evangelize knowing that they are now speaking heaven's truth about forgiveness and the kingdom of heaven.
For further discussion of the keys of the kingdom, see chapter 5, section C, entitled "Difference - Confession of sins to a priest, absolution, and penance".
The Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter was the first bishop at Rome, and thus the first pope. It claims that he went to Rome in about AD 42 and was bishop of the church there for 25 years. But evidence for this claim is slim at best; the evidence points to a much later date for the arrival of Peter in Rome. And, of course, keep in mind that being in Rome, even writing epistles from Rome, is not the same thing as being head bishop in the church at Rome.
It is likely that Peter wrote his two epistles from Rome, for at the end of his first epistle he sends the following greeting to his readers.
The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting … (1 Peter 5:13)
The "chosen one" in this verse is probably a reference to the local church, and "Babylon" is probably a symbolic reference to the city of Rome. (Other interpretations for "Babylon" are possible, but they are unlikely and beyond the scope of this book.)
Both Roman Catholic and other scholars date Peter's epistles in the A.D. 60's. This harmonizes with the fact that conservative chronologists place Peter's arrival at Rome in the early A.D. 60's. Thus, the question is whether Peter was in Rome before the early 60's.
New Testament evidence makes it very unlikely that Peter was at Rome before the early 60's. Acts 12 records that Peter was put in prison in Jerusalem by King Herod Agrippa I, who reigned in Judea from A.D. 41-44. Thus the earliest year for this imprisonment would be 41. Did Peter then go to Rome the next year, 42, as Roman Catholic tradition claims, or was his arrival in Rome delayed until some time in the early 60's before he wrote his two epistles from Rome?
Around A.D. 50 Peter was present at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:7). Also, (probably after the Jerusalem council) Peter was in Syrian Antioch where he withdrew from eating with the gentiles and was rebuked by Paul (Galatians 2:11-14). In Romans 16:3-16, written around A.D. 57, Paul greets twenty-six Roman Christians by name. If Peter were the head of the church in Rome at this time, his name would surely have been included. And just before Paul arrived at Rome (Acts 28:14-15) "the brothers" came to meet him – again no mention of Peter. Also, around A.D. 60 - 62 Paul wrote epistles from Rome to the believers at Philippi and Colosse, and to Philemon. (Some might prefer an earlier date, during one of Paul's imprisonments in the 50's, but the present argument stands no matter which date is used.) In these letters he sends greetings from many individuals with some mentioned by name, but again there is no mention of Peter (Philippians 4:21-22; Colossians 4:10-14; Philemon 23-24). The lack of Peter's name is especially significant in light of Paul's statement that he is listing co-workers, indeed, he is listing all who are his co-workers (Philemon 24; Colossians 4:11). Thus there is little likelihood that Peter was in Rome before the early 60's.
Hiebert gives the following conclusion:
Tradition uniformly asserts that Peter went to Rome, that he labored there, and there in his old age suffered martyrdom under Nero. The embellished tradition that he was bishop of Rome for 25 years is contrary to all NT evidence. He apparently came to Rome shortly after Paul's release from his first imprisonment there. (Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Rev. Ed., ed. Merrill C. Tenney, Zondervan, 1967, article on Peter)
The word "pope" comes from the Latin papa which means father. Early in the history of the Roman Catholic Church the term "pope" was applied in general to bishops and even priests, but after A.D. 900 it became customary to apply it exclusively to the bishop of Rome.
Since, as we have shown above, Peter was never given authority over the other apostles, was not the rock upon which the church was built, and was not uniquely given the keys of the kingdom, then it is clear that he was not the first in a long line of popes and the question of a continuous succession of popes from Peter becomes a meaningless question. Nevertheless we will consider the matter briefly since the Roman Catholic Church continues to maintain that Peter was bishop at Rome and that there is a continuous succession of popes from Peter.
The cursory review of the history of the Roman Catholic Church given earlier shows clearly that there is no true succession from one pope to the next. The chain is broken in many places. And with the mixture of the sacred and the secular, that is, with the state taking control of the appointment of popes, the papacy is frequently corrupted and its "line of succession" utterly destroyed. In addition, there are a number of popes which would be quickly disowned by any decent religious organization. There have been some popes who were so evil that they had to be removed by the state. While it is not the purpose of this book to linger on the dark side of the papacy, it is important to recognize that this is one more indication of the weakness of the system of papal and apostolic succession.
In 1870 the first Vatican Council declared papal infallibility, which led, a year later in Europe, to the withdrawal of many Roman Catholics and the formation of the Old Catholic Church.
Here is the current statement of infallibility:
In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith." (1994 Catechism, par. 889)
The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed, and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself. (1994 Catechism, par. 891)
Formally, the concept of papal infallibility applies specifically to those pronouncements made by the pope ex cathedra (from the chair) and pertaining to doctrine and morals. In fact, in the entire history of the Roman Catholic Church, only two ex cathedra pronouncements have been made – the immaculate conception of Mary, 1854, and the assumption of Mary, 1950. However, in practice, many other pronouncements are held to be infallible by Roman Catholics, such as conciliar statements and other statements coming from popes (Trigilio, page 31).
But not all previous popes considered popes infallible. For example, Pope Stephen VI (reigned 896-897) allowed the corpse of a previous pope, Formosus (reigned 891-896), to be exhumed and put on trial. The corpse was dressed in papal garb, placed on a throne, and a deacon answered for the dead pope. The outcome was that Formosus' election as pope was declared invalid (an act which was reversed twice by later popes), as were the holy orders he had conferred. The corpse was dragged through the streets and then thrown into the Tiber River. Rome was so outraged by this incident that Stephen VI was imprisoned and strangled. (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1982, Micropaedia articles on "Formosus" and "Stephen VI")
There was very strong opposition to the dogma of papal infallibility even from within the Roman Catholic Church. During the first Vatican Council, Bishop Joseph Strossmayer spoke so forcefully against the notion of papal infallibility that there were frequent cries from the floor calling him an impudent Protestant and a heretic. He stated that, based on his study of the New Testament, he must deny several of the unique Roman Catholic dogmas, including the supremacy of Peter and the extension of the papacy prior to A.D. 400. He then issued a strong appeal for his church to return to the teachings of the New Testament.
Strossmayer pointed to many examples of papal fallibility stating that
I should never finish if I were to put before your eyes the contradictions of the popes in their teaching.” (Strossmayer's speech is easily found on many websites)
This pattern of failure is inevitable whenever a human being is set on a pedestal above other humans. Illustrations of failure go all the way back to Peter, the so-called first pope. It does no good to argue that papal infallibility pertains to doctrine, while papal failings pertain to individual moral and spiritual weaknesses. According to the qualifications for elders (1 Timothy 3:1-8; Titus 1:5-9), when selecting those who will teach, you must pay close attention to their spiritual and moral track record. Individual behavior is not to be separated from teaching.
Also, consider the doctrines that were involved in Peter's failings. When Peter said "No such thing shall ever happen to you" in response to Jesus' teaching about his death (Matthew 16:22), and when he attempted to defend Jesus with a sword (John 18:10-11), he misunderstood the purpose of the incarnation, specifically, the necessity of the death of Jesus as the Lamb of God (John 1:29). And when Peter misrepresented the gospel by fearing rather than standing up to the Jews (Galatians 2:11-14), it is clear that his personal failures have obvious implications for this central teaching of the gospel. Individual behavior cannot be separated from teaching.
And there are plenty of examples of other spiritual and moral failings:
Probably the worst pope ever, Alexander VI (1492-1503) was a Borgia. The name is infamous; the Borgias were a notorious yet influential Italian family during the Renaissance when no unified Kingdom of Italy existed, only small principalities, dukedoms, and city-states. Pope Alexander VI had several illegitimate children before and during his reign as pope, two of whom are noteworthy: Cesare Borgia and his sister Lucrezia Borgia. Cesare grew up to be a ruthless autocrat, and Lucezia is reputed to have been the most famous poisoner. Alexander VI is the epitome of nepotism, bribery, deceit, debauchery, and anything else you can imagine. …
And Benedict IX (1032-1045) was a close second to the worst pope. Assuming the throne of St. Peter in his late teens or early twenties, this playboy pope incited a riot in Rome, because the people were so disgusted with his antics. (Trigilio, page 33)
In light of such evil behavior, frequent disagreement, and abuses of power (not to mention the thorough entanglement with and subservience to secular leaders mentioned earlier), one wonders how anyone can fail to see that the doctrine of papal infallibility is a complete mismatch with the facts.
The Roman Catholic Church throughout its history has been an earthly kingdom – firmly tied to a state and maintaining its own armies.
It was true that Jesus was king of the Jews (Matthew 27:11), but this is a spiritual kingdom. When the crowds wanted to make Jesus king by force, he withdrew from the scene (John 6:15). And standing before Pilate Jesus clearly stated
My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place. (John 18:36)
It is worth noting that Jesus did not limit himself to a positive statement such as, "My kingdom is from another place." If he had, we would be able to reason as follows: Of course, it is spiritual (from another place), but it is also of this world. However, the inclusion of the negative, "My kingdom is not of this world," does not allow such a conclusion. There is nothing about Jesus' kingdom which would allow it to be mistaken for an earthly nation or kingdom. A Jew of the first century would know from Jesus' own words that his kingdom was not anything like Rome. He would also know that it was not like a re-birth of the Maccabean state that existed in Israel's recent past and was the hope of many Jews. And we know from Jesus' words that his kingdom is nothing like the "Christian" Roman empire of Constantine and Theodosius, and nothing like the papal states of the 700s through the 1800s, and nothing like the Inquisition of the 1100s through the 1800s. It was at the beginning of the Inquisition that Pope Innocent III said he was
set midway between God and man, below God, but above men, given not only the universal Church but the whole world to govern. (Pope Innocent III, 1198)
Much later Pope Pius IX (reigned 1846-1878) made it very clear that the Roman Catholic Church both has the right to govern, and, in those states which have separate civil or secular governments, has total authority over those governments. The Syllabus of Errors issued under Pius IX (papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm) devotes more tenants to the notion that the church governs the state than any other issue. It includes a condemnation of public schools (see articles 45 and 57).
Jesus' statement also includes the denial that his servants would fight, which Jesus illustrated by his rebuke of Peter's attempt to protect him from arrest by use of the sword (John 18:10-11). But the history of the Roman Catholic Church, as it became entangled with the state, became a history of fighting. Remember that Constantine claimed that he converted to Christianity because he was promised a military victory over the armies of Maxentius. There was also the attempted recovery of the Holy Land by force during the Crusades, and the compulsory "conversions" of many throughout the Inquisition. Indeed, fighting is inseparable from the history of the Roman Catholic Church.
In addition to Jesus' direct statement that his kingdom is not of this world, there are other indications that the true church is a spiritual body rather than a militant state. Jesus' sermon on the mount (Matthew 5 - 7), which describes the essence of the kingdom, has an obvious emphasis on that which is inner and personal, meek and gentle. Also, Jesus told his followers not to mimic the style of the national leaders around them (Matthew 20:25-28). And Paul describes the true church as the continuation, not of national Israel, but of spiritual Israel (Romans 11:17-24). To turn the true church into a state is to lead it far away from the divine intent.
The Roman Catholic Church became entangled with the state in A.D. 330 when Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. And the Church became inseparable from the state, especially during the millennium long existence of the Papal States. Even though its realm is much smaller today, the Roman Catholic Church is still inseparable from its Vatican state.